Effect of Blade Materials on the Undershot Water Turbine

Performance
Eko Yohanes Setyawan1, Ir. Soeparno Djiwo1, Djoko Hari Praswanto1, Tutut Nani
Prihatmi1, Richard A. M Napitupulu2, Parulian Siagian2*
1
Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Industrial Technology, National Institute of
Technology Malang. Jl. Bendungan Sigura-gura No.2 Malang 65152, Indonesia.
2
Mechanical Engineering Department, Nommensen HKBP University, Jl. Sutomo
4A Medan 20234, Indonesia.
Correspondence: parulian.nommensen@gmail.com
Abstract
Undershot waterwheel at low flow with an average discharge of 0.12 m3/s and
613.2 W water horsepower are used to turn the waterwheel. The rotation results
obtained with aluminum material is 24 RPM which has a density of 2.71 g/cm3
while the lowest rotation is owned by a galvanic of 20 RPM with a density of 7.49
g/cm3. From the experiment, it was found that the difference between the materials
used was due to the different density. The efficiency of waterwheels with
aluminum material has the highest value, namely 30%, while the lowest using
acrylic material has an efficiency of 23%. For the highest generator efficiency
using aluminum material with an efficiency of 4.2%, the second has an efficiency
of 3.6% using Aluminum Composite Panel material. Aluminum has the highest
efficiency because it has less density than galvanized. In addition, the thickness of
aluminum is also very influential, where aluminum has a thickness of 1.14 mm
while Galvanized has 0.98 mm.

1. Introduction
The issue of energy nowadays is an important point of some rules that
have been made by the government, especially regarding energy needs because
there are many areas that have not been electrified. There are also rules regarding
alternative energy as a solution for the development of future energy that is
currently being developed [1, 2]. One of them is hydropower as it exploits
underutilized resources such as rivers or small streams [3, 4]. Indonesia itself has
a lot of potential energy sources that can be utilized, such as solar energy, which is
always available throughout the year. Therefore, new designs are developed using
solar that is used with optimal performance [5]. The energy potential of the river
flow is very promising as it can be utilized as much as possible to produce
electrical energy [6, 7]. Potential energy from small river fluid flow or irrigation
can be extracted into electricity [8]. It is expected that the potential of river flow in
Indonesia can be utilized to the maximum extent possible to be converted into
electrical energy, so that it no longer experiences a shortage of electrical energy
needs. There are many streams in several areas such as Java, Sumatra, Kalimantan
and Papua and many more in other islands that can be utilized. The urgent need is
making waterwheels using easy-to-found materials such as wood materials that
have low efficiency [9, 10] as it is done traditionally. To increase efficiency even
greater, vertical type waterwheels that take into account the density of the material
used can be made [11, 12]. The mass of the material is very influential on the
change in potential energy present in the flow of water into mechanical energy as
the rotation of the water wheel used to turn the generator to produce electrical
energy [13].
 Prasad et al [14] compared the axial efficiency of flow turbines coming
through experimental and CFD analysis with three different guide vane angles.
Whereas Jain and Saini, [15] conducted a study of the performance and efficiency
of a french turbine in 4 different operations at the propeller point by using CFD
and to validate the same as testing the model. Kim et al [16], analyzed the
performance of water turbines by varying the effect of tangential and axial
pressures, which examined the velocity distribution on turbine performance using
CFD [17]. The purpose is to get the maximum development of hydro power
turbines in industrial activities [18]. Hung also analyzed the performance and field
of the waterwheel by utilizing tidal energy by using six and nine blades resulting
in more blades that used greater torque [19]. Water energy can be utilized and
used in the form of mechanical energy to produce electrical energy using simple
equipment, most of which are around us [20]. The average waterwheels are used
on a small scale so that precise calculations are needed in order to get maximum
results such as the use of composite materials [21]. Waterwheels are expected to
evolve into an efficient tool that can be used at any time, of course using design
and analysis that uses several important parameters to improve its efficiency [22,
23].
Ishola has conducted research on hydroelectric power for additional power
storage using three types of suitable materials of Steel, A390 cast aluminum alloy,
and Plastics [24]. The research was carried out to study the effect of turbine
materials on the efficiency of power generation from hydroelectric plants made of
steel and aluminum. The results showed that the maximum power generation
efficiency of steel and aluminum turbines is 33.56% and 34.79% and that the
efficiency of aluminum turbines is higher than that of steel turbines on average
8.4% and 8.14%, respectively. These results suggested that a lighter water turbine
can improve torque and efficiency [25]. Previous research that has been carried
out by Setyawan was the design of waterwheels with designs to meet small-scale
power consumption, especially for household consumers in areas far from the city
using undershot waterwheels with twelve blades [26]. From several analyzes from
the results of previous research, so that in the analysis aiming to get the
appropriate material, in order to get maximum efficiency, 4 materials were chosen
to be used for waterwheel blades, namely aluminum, galvanized, acrylic and
aluminum composite panels.

2. Method
The design of the waterwheel is based on theory and several approaches to get
good efficiency, and the theoretical approach of a flat plate that is placed in the
water flow is used to rotate a waterwheel which consists of 12 blades with a 19
mm axle shaft. In this condition, velocity, force and equation were used as below
[27]
 Figure 1. Force acting on the blade on the performance of the undershot water
turbine

S=L x (D/2) x (1-cosθ/sin α) (1)

S is the submerged surface of the blade where L is the width of the water wheel (m),
D is the diameter of the water wheel (m) and α is the angle of inclination.

P=Cp x (ρ/2) x vr2x S (2)

P is the lift; Cp is the lift coefficient; ρ is the density (kg/m3); Vr is the radial
velocity (m/s); S is the submerged blade surface (m)

R=Cp x (ρ/2) x vt2x S (3)

The tensile force where Cp is the coefficient of lift ρ is the density (kg/m3); Vt is
the tangential velocity (m/s); S is the submerged blade surface (m)

𝐹 = √𝑃2 + 𝑅 2 (4)

F is the resultant force.

Fu= F x cos ε (5)

ε = arctan (CR/CP) – (a-γ) (6)

Fu is the useful force and its angle, while γ is the angle of relative velocity.

M =Fu x (D/4) x (1+Cosθ/Sin α) (7)

M is the useful moment, while θ is the angle between the center of the wheel and
the maximum load position of the blade.

Nu= M x ω= Fu x vt (8)
 Nmed = Ki S(Nu/n) (9)

Nu is the instantaneous force and the average force where n is the number of
points calculated between the zero action positions. The value usually taken is
between 1 <n <6 and the maximum load position of the blade, whereas Ki is the
active blade coefficient, for the undershot type of turbine Ki = 1, 6.

Nmax = (ρ/2) x S max x vam3 (10)

Smax = L (11)

Nmax is the maximum force of flow, Smax is the maximum surface of the blade
submerged and h is the ratio of blade submerged.

η= Nmed / Nmax (12)

η is the efficiency of the water wheel. Whereas ω is angular velocity:

ω= 4vt / [D(1+ Cosθ/Sin α)] (13)

n med is the rotation speed:

n med = (30/πn) x S ωj (14)

θ = cos-1[{(0.5 x D) – (B x h)}/ (0.5 x D)] (15)
α = (90 – θ ) + θ x (m / m+1) (16)

m is a constant of 1≤m≤6

To find out the Radial velocity, the following equation was used:

Vr = v( Vam2 – 2 x Vam x Vt x sin a + Vt2) (17)

Tangential velocity equation used:

Vt = (Vam x sin α) x 0.5 x [1+( cosθ/sin α)] (18)

tan γ = (Vt x cosa) / (Vam - Vt x sin a) (19)
 Figure 2. Diagram of experimental set up

3. Results and Discussions

In this study, experimentation and assembly of tools were carried out in the
alternative energy laboratory of ITN Malang. This test was carried out to
determine the performance of the undershot type waterwheel with a variety of
materials used on the blade to obtain optimal performance. The blade consisted of
4 types of material, namely Galvanized, Aluminum, Aluminum Composite Panel
and Acrylic with different density as shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Experimental results on water horsepower and density of water wheel

blade material
Thickness Water
Density
No. Material Horsepower
[g/cm3] [mm] [W]
1 Galvanized 7.49 0.98 613,.2
2 Aluminum 2.71 1.14 613.2
Aluminum
3 1.2 4 613.2
Composite Panel
4 Acrylic 1.82 3 613.2

Table 1 showed the density of the material to be used for different blades.
Galvanized material had the highest density of 7.49 g/cm3, followed by the second
place Aluminum which has a density of 2.71 g/cm3, then followed by Aluminum
Composite Panel. The 4th lowest material used for the blade has a density of 1.82
g/cm3 which is owned by Acrylic material. While the power used to turn the
waterwheel was obtained from:

Pm : p. g. Q. H (20)

Pm is the power of hydropower P/Rho is the density of water which has a value of
1000 kg/𝑚3 , g is the earth's gravity has a constant of 9.8 𝑚2 /s, for Q is the water
discharge (𝑚3 /mm)and H is the water level (m) which has a height of 0.5 m. After
the calculation, the water horsepower achieved was 613.2 W which was used to
rotate the waterwheel by varying the blades.
 Figure 3. The density of the material at the rotational speed of the water wheel

Figure 3 showed the density of the material with a waterwheel rotational speed
with a 613.2 W water force. The largest rotation of waterwheel owned by
Aluminum at 24 RPM with a density of 2.71 g/cm3 while the lowest was the
galvanizer at 20 RPM which has a density of 7.49 g/cm3. From the experimental
results, it was found that the difference between the 4 materials was due to
different density. There was an average trend seen that the greater the density used
will affect the rotation of the waterwheel, that was the smaller the rotation.
Meanwhile, with a small density, the rotation obtained at the waterwheel was
getting bigger. This can be seen in the second place owned by Acrylic which had
23 RPM speed and Aluminum Composite Panel of 21 RPM which had a low
average density.

Figure 4. Density of material with horsepower brake

Figure 4 shows the density of the waterwheel blade material and brake
horsepower during the experiment. The first thing done was to find the torque of
the undershot waterwheel. Torque is the power that the waterwheel has to rotate
because it is caused by the driving force of the moving water. To find out the
brake horsepower, a simple rope brake type dynamometer was used as shown in
Figure 5.
 Gambar 5. Rope brake dynamometer

This was a simple dynamometer consisting of two ropes wrapped around a drum
whose water resistance will be measured using a measuring instrument. The loose
side was connected to a measuring instrument to find out the pull that was
symbolized by B. The tight side of the rope bore the dead weight symbolized by
A. The braking torque obtained where A was the A scale, B was the B scale, and F
was the Force for power calculation:

Power : T . W
: (F.r ) (2.𝜋.n) (21)
2.𝜋.𝐹.𝑟.𝑛
HP : Hp (22)
550
: Lb. Ft.RPM
: 550 Ft.lb/s

n is the RPM of the drum speed on the undershot wheel, r is the drum diameter
with a diameter of 60 mm and ∆f is the weight difference on the scale (lb). It can
be seen in Figure 4 that the density of the material greatly affected the brake
horsepower obtained. The trend of the highest density started from galvanize and
aluminum, followed by Aluminum Composite Panel and acrylic. The brake
horsepower produced by an undershot waterwheel using galvanized material was
134.1 W, while aluminum had a value of 181 W. These two materials had a
difference of 46.9 W because the density of the material used was different, as
well as in aluminum. Acrylic material had 140.1 W brake horsepower value, while
the Aluminum Composite Panel had 173.5 W, a higher value than acrylic. Acrylic
material and Aluminum Composite Panel have a difference of 33.4 W. From the
density of these two materials, the density value was not significantly far.
The density value on acrylic had a value of 1.2 g/cm3 and in the Aluminum
Composite Panel had 1.8 g/cm3. The difference was 5 g/cm3. This caused the
brake horsepower value to differ in the two materials used, as from the whole
materials, aluminum had the best result.
 Figure 5. Efficiency of the waterwheel and generators

Figure 5 showed the efficiency of the undershot waterwheel and the efficiency of
the undershot waterwheel. The left side graph showed the efficiency of the
waterwheel which had the first trend up because the difference in density between
aluminum materials had the highest value of 30%, while the lowest using acrylic
material had an efficiency of 23%. Seen from the two materials used, those had a
difference of 7% for micro hydro efficiency with a difference in value on the
brake horsepower of 46.9 W. Aluminum in Figure 5 had the highest efficiency
value, followed by Aluminum Composite Panel which had an efficiency of 28%
and acrylic material which had an efficiency of 23% had a difference of 4%. The
efficiency of the generator on the right side showed the highest generator
efficiency using aluminum material with an efficiency of 4.2%, the second had an
efficiency of 3.6% using the Aluminum Composite Panel material and the third
had the same efficiency of 3% using acrylic and galvanized materials. Aluminum
had the highest efficiency because it had a density that was not that large
compared to galvanize. In addition, the thickness of aluminum was very
influential. Aluminum had a thickness of 1.14 mm thicker than galvanize which
had 0.98 mm as shown in Table 1. The Table also provided information about 3
mm thick acrylic which had the lowest micro hydro efficiency, while the
Aluminum Composite Panel material had a thickness of 4 mm. From Figure 5 and
Table 1, it could be concluded that the higher density of the 4 materials used, the
greater the efficiency. However, it must be accompanied by a thick material so
that it had a large force as it greatly affected the cross-sectional area when the
pressure from the water the torsion of the waterwheel increased.

4. Conclusion
This research designed and made a prototype of an undershot type of waterwheel
which consisted of a waterwheel connected to a generator with the addition of a v-
belt and pulley. The best results were obtained among the 4 materials used.
Aluminum has the property of having a smaller material density which has a great
efficiency, but it must be accompanied by the thickness of the material. By doing
so, it had a large thrust force as it greatly affected the cross-sectional area. When it
was under pressure from water the torsion of the waterwheel increased. If the
density is large but the thickness remains small, it will not increase the efficiency
of the wheel like in Galvanized material. Therefore, it is necessary to use some
 modifications to the waterwheel material to improve the performance of the
system.

References
1. Panwar NL, Kaushik SC, Surendra K. Role of renewable energy sources in
environmental protection: a review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
2011;15:1513–24.
2. Yuksek O, Komurcu MI, Yuksel I, Kaygusuz K. The role of hydropower in
meeting Turkey's electric energy demand. Energy Policy 2006;34:3093–103.
3. Rohmer, J. et al. (2016) ‘Modeling and experimental results of an Archimedes
screw turbine’, Renewable Energy. Elsevier Ltd, 94, pp. 136–146. doi:
10.1016/j.renene.2016.03.044.
4. Setyawan, E. Y. et al. (2020) ‘Simulation model of vertical water wheel
performance flow’, IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering,
725(1). doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/725/1/012020
5. Suravut, S. et al. (2017) ‘Stand Alone Water Wheel Low Speed Surface Aerator
Chaipattana RX-2-3, Controller System’, Energy Procedia. Elsevier B.V., 138,
pp. 751–755. doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2017.10.214
6. Yuksel I. Hydropower in Turkey for a clean and sustainable energy future.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2008;12:1622–40.
7. Yukse, I “As a renewable energy hydropower for sustainable development in
Turkey” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14 (2010) 3213–3219
8. Erinofiardi et al. (2017) ‘Experimental Study of Screw Turbine Performance
based on Different Angle of Inclination’, Energy Procedia. The Author(s),
110(December 2016), pp. 8–13. doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.094.
9. Vashisht AK. Current status of the traditional watermills of the Himalayan region
and the need of technical improvements for increasing their energy effiency. Appl
Energy 2012;98:307-15.
10. Williamson, S. J., Stark, B. H. and Booker, J. D. (2014) ‘Low head pico hydro
turbine selection using a multi-criteria analysis’, Renewable Energy, 61(0), pp.
43–50. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2012.06.020.
11. Miller G, Kauppert K. Performance characteristics of water wheels. J Hydraul Res
2004;42(5):45-60.
12. Denny M. The effiency of overshot and undershot waterwheels. Eur J Phys
2004;25:193-202.
13. Adanta, D., Budiarso and Warjito (2020) ‘The effect of channel slope angle on
breastshot waterwheel turbine performance by numerical method’, Energy
Reports. Elsevier Ltd, 6, pp. 606–610. doi: 10.1016/j.egyr.2019.11.126.
14. Prasad, V, Gahlot, V K & Krinnamachar, P “CFD approach for design
optimization and validation for axial flow hydraulic turbine” Indian Journal of
Engineering & Material secince Vol. 16, August 2009,pp 229-236
15. Jain, S, Saini,R P & Kumar, A “CFD approach for prediction of efficiency of
Francis turbine” IGHEM-2010, oct. 21-23, AHEC, IIT Roorkee, India
16. Kim, Y T, Nam, S H, Cho, Y J, Hwang, Y, C, Choi,Y D, Nam, C D & Lee, Y H
“Tubular-Type hydro turbine performance for variable guide vane opening by
CFD” The fifth international conference on fluid mechanics, Aug 15-19,2007,
Shanghai, Chaina.
17. E.Y Setyawan, S Djiwo and T Sugiarto, Simulation Model of Fluid Flow and
Temperature Distribution in Porous Media Using Cylinder Convergent and
 Divergent Nozzle, Internasional Journal of Technology and Sciences, 1 (2017) 1-
10.
18. Viollet, P. L. (2017) ‘From the water wheel to turbines and hydroelectricity.
Technological evolution and revolutions’, Comptes Rendus - Mecanique. Elsevier
Masson SAS, 345(8), pp. 570–580. doi: 10.1016/j.crme.2017.05.016.
19. M. H. Nguyen, H. Jeong, and C. Yang, “A study on flow fields and performance
of water wheel turbine using experimental and numerical analyses,” Sci. China
Technol. Sci., vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 464–474, 2018.
20. Agar, D. and Rasi, M. (2008) ‘On the use of a laboratory-scale Pelton wheel water
turbine in renewable energy education’, Renewable Energy, 33(7), pp. 1517–1522.
doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2007.09.003.
21. Wang, J. F., Piechna, J. and MÜller, N. (2012) ‘A novel design of composite
water turbine using CFD’, Journal of Hydrodynamics. Publishing House for
Journal of Hydrodynamics, 24(1), pp. 11–16. doi: 10.1016/S1001-6058(11)60213-
8.
22. Denny M. “ The efficiency of overshot and undershot water wheels”.European
journal of physics. Vol. 25, no 193-202,2014
23. Sritram, P. and Suntivarakorn, R. (2017) ‘Comparative Study of Small
Hydropower Turbine Efficiency at Low Head Water’, Energy Procedia. Elsevier
B.V., 138, pp. 646–650. doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2017.10.181.
24. Ishola, F. A. et al. (2019) ‘Simulation for material selection for a pico pelton
turbine’s wheel and buckets’, Procedia Manufacturing. Elsevier B.V., 35, pp.
1172–1177. doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2019.06.073.
25. Sritram, P., Treedet, W. and Suntivarakorn, R. (2015) ‘Effect of turbine materials
on power generation efficiency from free water vortex hydro power plant’, IOP
Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 103(1). doi: 10.1088/1757-
899X/103/1/012018.
26. Setyawan, E. Y. et al. (2019) ‘Design of Low Flow Undershot Type Water
Turbine’, Journal of Science and Applied Engineering, 2(2), p. 50. doi:
10.31328/jsae.v2i2.1184.
27. Kumara, L. H. L. T. P. (2014) ‘Analysis of Floating Type Water Wheel for Pico
Hydro Systems in Sri Lanka’, Energy Technology EGI. Available
at:http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2;808617.pdf